From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)surnet(dot)cl> |
---|---|
To: | Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> |
Cc: | ljh1469(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com, "David(dot)Bear(at)asu(dot)edu" <David(dot)Bear(at)asu(dot)edu>, pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: psql copy errors |
Date: | 2005-06-24 14:56:56 |
Message-ID: | 20050624145656.GA7762@surnet.cl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Fri, Jun 24, 2005 at 09:43:43AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-06-24 at 00:52, ????????? wrote:
> > David Bear:
> >
> > Yes. I agree with you.
> > \copy is really too brittle.
> > I wonder why \copy is not like oracle's sqlldr?
> > I think sqlldr is more powerful. When using sqlldr,we can specify the maximum error records we allow,and we can also specify the number we should commit in every transaction.
>
> While I wouldn't mind have the versatility of sqlldr, I would HATE to
> have to deal with such a clunky interface. The only features of sqlldr
> I actually like are the ones that allow rejected records to go into a
> separate file.
There's a PGLoader project in pgfoundry that may suit some people.
> > Another aspect is also important. Oracle has better partition
> > table facilities,it's especially suitable for large tables,as
> > well as index partition concepts.But PostgreSQL has no such
> > concepts.These are really important for large database.
>
> No one would complain if someone stepped up and programmed a decent
> table partitioning patch. I have a feeling it's one of the things on
> the TODO list that will happen in the next version or two.
I think Simon Riggs and crew are working on this.
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]surnet.cl>)
Jude: I wish humans laid eggs
Ringlord: Why would you want humans to lay eggs?
Jude: So I can eat them
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gaetano Mendola | 2005-06-24 15:00:03 | RPM or RPMS for RH9.0 |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2005-06-24 14:55:56 | Re: unicode |